Summer Break from Federal Gas Taxes Part of New McCain "Jobs for America" Economy Bailout Program

Sen. John McCain will take a bold step forward today as he addresses the state of America's economy and promises to balance the budget. McCain's proposal, called "Jobs for America," includes these points:
--summer suspension of federal gas taxes at the pump
--action to stop families from losing their homes in current credit crisis; refusal of taxpayer dollars to bail out those who preyed on consumers
--dismantling the pork barrel stuffed via earmarks
--assisting small businesses, including energy costs
--tax credits for R&D (research and design) work
--exporting more American goods and strengthening U.S. markets abroad
--expand use of domestic gas and oil and punish oil market speculators
--$300 million prize for development of battery power for cars
--cheaper medications
--more attention paid to chronic diseases
--make health insurance more portable as Americans change jobs
--ban internet taxes and new cellphone usage taxes
--adding more training and job resources to unemployment provisions.

Mike Allen of Politico has a thorough analysis and the entire proposal. McCain has been speaking out on the crisis in home mortgages as well as reaching out on his Latin American tour.

McCain: Hagee Apology Praised, "Reconciliation" Stressed

On the other hand, compare Barack Obama mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's race-baiting, "God Damn America" posture. There's no reconciliation there, just unrepentant anger.

Obama vs. Wright: The Delicious Irony of Racism Charges

As Barack Obama distances himself from his former mentor, guide, friend and pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the irony of the "racism" charges launched at those who didn't like Wright's "God Damn America" takes center stage. Those who had criticized Wright's fiery comments and attack on a country he claims created HIV to kill blacks were routinely called "racists" by Obama cultists.

Are these remarks racist? These are responses to Wright's speeches and sermons:

--"...ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

They offend me. The rightly offend all Americans."

--"the insensitivity and the outrageousness of his statements..."

--"I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems."

--"when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed that you lose sight of what we have in common, that it overrides everything else, that we’re not concerned about the struggles of others, because we’re looking at things only through a particular lens"

--"I didn’t see it as an attack on the black church"

--"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

Are those comments racist. Or not?

The speaker is, of course, Barack Obama. He is saying what many others have been saying about Wright's views.

But when non-blacks expressed those views, they were savaged by leftists and Obama supporters, who declared them "racist." That kneejerk reaction clearly shows that leftists aren't looking at the message: they only are looking at the messenger and whether or not that messenger fits their "posterchild" needs.

If the messenger is black, he or she and what they do or say automatically is right, nay, even brilliant. If the messenger is not black, they're bound to be racist or stupid rednecks from Pennsylvania or otherwise who cling to their guns and religion because they don't know any better.(A nod to Obama's wine-and-cheese comments in California.)

How can leftists now defend their race-based assault on those who didn't like what Wright was saying? Logically,they can't. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't.

And what of Obama himself? His wishy-washy, run-and-hide from this issue, has cost him a great deal. On the one hand, he didn't distance himself from Wright soon enough. His pleas of ignorance about Wright's views simply were absurd. Not only that, compare Obama's comments, above, to his friend the Rev. Al Sharpton's rhetoric and actions.



But now, suddenly, Obama criticizes Wright and steps back. But does he step up? No. Obama, long ago, could have handled this issue with wisdom, honesty, compassion, grace, and political saavy.

If he thinks America needs continued work on racism,he could have used Wright's "God Damn America" and other comments as his springboard. Here's how it could have gone, way back in this sorry, sordid tale.

"I am very saddened by my former pastor's attacks on my country. I agree that as a people, we need to continue our work on improving race and cultural relations. We have done a great deal in less than three generations. There is work still ahead, but I have faith that we will continue on this path together.

Attacks like the Rev. Wright have launched must cease if we are to work together. The people of the United States did not cause 9-11, and to say "God damn America" is an insult to the country, its people, and, given the substitution of hate for love, an insult to Christian spiritual beliefs."

Rev. Wright is correct in saying that we still have work to do. But he is very wrong in his attack on our country, and his use of religon to foster hate and anger.

For this reason, Michelle and I have, with great sadness, removed our membership from Rev. Wright's church."

Did Obama say --or do-- any of the above? No, he did not. Why not?

Obama didn't tackle this issue head-on for many reasons. The first is that he wanted the image and support base of his membership in a very large, very well-known black church.

The second is his reliance, as stated in his books, on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama did not choose Wright to baptize his children or conduct his marriage ceremony lightly. Nor did he, or could he, support the Trinity church for twenty years without supporting Wright.

The third is the dangerous one: does Obama secretly agree with Wright's views and presentation? Obama now says he doesn't. How much credence should we give Obama's sudden "wake-up" call and criticism of Wright?

Very little. Fact: Obama did not criticize nor distance himself from Wright until Wright did two things. The first was to keep grabbing the media spotlight for himself,while keeping a very sore issue for Obama in the public's eye.

The Obama campaign wishes that Wright's commentary could be swept under the carpet. Wright, however, has been using the controversy as his magic carpet ride to fame.

Obama speaks: "The fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me." And there you have it--Wright is interfering with Obama and his campaign.

The second Wright action that led to Obama's sudden splitting from his former pastor: Wright's criticism of Obama. Until Wright attacked Obama, Obama was willing to play along in order to prove he's "black enough."

"And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," Obama told the media. How dare Wright say that Obama indulges in political posturing! (wink!)

When Wright attacked America, Obama said nothing except that he wasn't aware of Wright's views. When Wright attacks Obama, Obama ditches Wright.

That sounds like political posturing to me, along with a Hefty bag full of hypocrisy and deceit. Notice the language, too.

Obama to a questioner: "...I'll be honest with you." There are two important things to know about this phrase.

The first is that this phrase tacitly says "I'll be honest with you now because I haven't been before." People use this phrase only two ways: without understanding what they are telegraphing, or with understanding of what they are telegraphing. In the latter instances, the speakers usally think they can get away with it through charm and/or rhetoric. (Think: shopping for a car. "I'll be honest with you--my manager won't like that but I'm on your side and I'll go put it to him.")

The second important thing about the phrase "I'll be honest with you" is this: it immediately signals a prevarication of some type. If you say "I'm going to the grocery store now," do you say "I'll be honest with you, I'm going to the grocery store now."

If you say "I think the price on the grapes is outrageous, you don't say "I'll be honest with you, I think the price on the grapes is outrageous." You just plain say what you have to say.

"I'll be honest with you" signals discomfort, dancing around, some level of deception. As in: Obama's shifting stands on his former pastor and the message of his church.

As this issue continues, the layers of Obama are being peeled back. What we are seeing here is not change, but just another politician, trying to be everything to everybody.

Question: if Obama does this poorly dealing with a man who he has loved, and turned to for spiritual counseling, how well will he deal with real enemies and the stress of international politics? As Dr. Phil McGraw says, the best predictor of someone's future actions are their past actions.








One more note: Rev. Wright, stop hiding behind the church. Your accusations that "attacks" on you are not attacks on you but the "black religious tradition" are hypocritical. We are outright criticizing you. But we are not criticizing black churches. Stand up like a man and claim what is your problem. Don't spread it to all black churches and congregants.

Elect Obama, Get Al Gore Too

Hillary Clinton Under Fire for Not Being Under Fire While Obama Sat in Racist Church Damning America

The Barack Obama camp, of course, wasted no time in going negative with what Hillary Clinton calls "a minor blip." Frankly, the fatigue and jet lag of not only globe-trotting but thousands of trips is more believable as a cause of mistakes than is sitting in a hate-spewing , racist minister's church for 20 years and calling it "not agreeing." Obama still will not be able to dig his way out of the Jeremiah Wright mess.



In comparison, here's where Barack Obama spent a couple of decades, learning from the man he calls his mentor and spiritual advisor.

Analysis: Clinton Clicks With Voters, Super Delegates Key

Uh Oh Obama: Texas, Ohio Say No

McCain: Next Stop, the White House

Obama Supporter Rezko in Court on Corruption Charges; Obama May Be Forced to Testify

Raw Video: The Clinton-Obama Showdown

Will Hillary Clinton Quit This Friday?

Will Hillary Clinton give up her campaign for the White House this Friday? Supposedly, she will--according to someone's dinner conversation with someone else.

Let's face it, this has been a weird presidential campaign. With the media serving primarily as a Barack Obama cheerleading squad, the Democratic campaign and seemingly endless debates have seemed like street theater, a high-priced busking for electoral votes.

In the Obama-Clinton Punch and Judy show, many are already counting Clinton out on a TKO. Apparently, the only cubic zirconia jewel left in the not-even-triple crown is the right to be the first to declare Obama king.




The "Hillary will bow out" story is posted here by blogger Jay Severin. Here at the Peanut Patch, we figure that the Drudge Report will slap down chips by tomorrow morning.

We don't know what Hillary Clinton is thinking. We haven't had dinner with anyone who's had dinner with someone who's highly-placed or "in the know".

But, looking up from our at-home, in-front-of-the-TV dinner, we do know this: she hasn't been given a fair shake before she's baked. The media and self-ordained pundits have been too busy tsk tsking Sen. Clinton as nothing more than Hillary Housewife Clinton.

Bottom line: regardless of our party affiliation, we Americans showed up for a presidential campaign, with issues in the forefront. What the Democrats, aided and abetted by leftists and the media (or is that redundant?), have given us is rhetoric, political cant, and the desperate search for a Kennedy-esque, Elvis-quality rock star (cue Obama)

The Republicans scrapped it out with substance and style. The Democrats, on the edge of the great Kennedy divide, have yearningly stampeded toward a Liberace-style road show.

We'll be honest here: Hillary Clinton isn't our candidate. But she's smart, serious, and has significant expertise--not that you'd know it by now. She's been fair game for the old power ploys meant to whittle down the little woman who thought she could.

And that, folks, just isn't right. If Hillary Clinton bows out early, it will be everyone's loss, and a triumph of spectacle over substance.

Our advice? Run, Hillary, run. Don't let yourself be forced out by media, bloggers, rumors, or anything else. Fight back.

Because frankly, we'd like to see a match-up between you and Republican John McCain. We figure that contest would get down to reality's core, instead of the current Democratic search for "Miss Congeniality."

And yes, we do want world peace (thank you, Sandra Bullock). But what we need to maintain our security at home, fight global terrorism, and be a world leader is more guts and less glitz.

And running for president as a woman, with Bill Clinton as baggage, took guts. Especially when no one assessed extra freight charges on Obama for his long-term support for indicted slumlord and political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

The Waffle Watch: Part-Time Senator Obama , Race, Iraq, & The Poor

Although Sen. Barack Obama, the very junior Democrat senator from Illinois, apparently is now more a star than, say, Elvis Presley, it's still not a bad idea to get past the hype and look at reality. As this quick-look by CBS shows, Obama has waffled on Iraq for years.

Even though Democratic party apologist Sen. Dick Durbin spreads the justification jam, the message is clear: Obama's campaign is actually a giant moving waffle house. There's another hidden message in Obama's speeches, and here CBS shows a major one.

Obama speaks of his campaign bringing whites, blacks, and Latinos together and of working on anti-poverty programs for those groups. Memo to Sen. Obama: among Illinois' top 5 ethnic groups are the original inhabitants of this land: Native Americans.

Census results from the turn of the century show that about 100 tribes are represented in Illinois, most in the Chicago area. Many Native Americans were moved to Chicago during the government's ill-fated "relocation" programs designed to break up tribal communities and reservations.

Obama needs to check on poverty statistics and needs for that section of his constituency, which makes up slightly more than nine per cent of his state's population. It's apparent, though, that like most black politicians before him, Obama finds Native Americans to be invisible--to him, at least.

Someone might also want to tell Obama that there are Asians, in fact, many racial backgrounds, in his state, and home city, and that many of them are poor or working poor. Again, Obama makes it clear, to those who can get past the media hype, that his focus is on snake-charming the all-important black, Latino, and white voters.

Does America really want, or need, a president who not only is a waffle king, but who's only interested in serving only certain groups at his slick cliche cafe? We need to think about that.

There's another problem here: the issue of race. Obama's campaign waffles there, too. It's supposedly not about race, but the mantle of "first potential black president" gets whipped around in the air like a Spanish matador's cape.

Make no mistake, it is about race--as duplicitously defined by the Obama camp. If you support him, it's not about race. If you don't support him, then you're part of America's racial problems. The core message is subtle, but pervasive: a vote for Obama is a vote to prove the U.S. is not racially prejudiced; a word, or vote against Obama proves it is.

Or so the Obama camp would have you believe. In fact, the essence of racial equality in politics is that all candidates get evaluated by their record and their statements, regardless of their race.That applies to Obama, too.

If this country really wishes to continue to mature racially, then it's time to get past the rhetoric and the hype, and make one thing clear: voting against Obama is not a vote against blacks, or a vote for white domination. It's simply a vote that chooses another candidate as more qualified and more trustworthy, based on the individual voter's beliefs and choices.

Will some people vote against Obama because he is black? Of course. On the other hand, will some vote for Obama because he is black? Of course.. Interestingly enough, a vote for Obama because he's black isn't a racial choice, according to the leftist rhetoric, whereas a vote against him is. Or (back to the waffle counter here) a vote for Obama is a good racial choice, proving our racial fairness; a vote against is racism.

America doesn't have to prove anything racially. Within a very short time, the U.S. has moved from the rotten era of routine segregation (not to mention routine sexism) to an integrated nation. If you doubt that, check out the Secretary of State's office, the Supreme Court, and just about every facet of our daily lives.

Dealing with racial issues isn't easy. Xenophobia seems to be hard-wired into us as a species. We each have to outgrow that, just as developing babies in the womb have to outgrow vestiges of a tail and the stage where the fetus looks more like a newt than anything else.

The reality is that in no time, in no place, will prejudice ever be totally rooted out of the human race other than by education and cultural changes, such as those demonstrated in the U.S. in less than 50 years. To frame this election only in terms of race is the mirror image of pre-integration days, when everything was framed by race.

We don't have to buy into proving ourselves as "not racist" by voting for Obama. That needs to be repeated. Evaluate him fairly--which means looking at him without the "first black" rhetoric.

Because color, or racial background, is a lousy reason to vote for, or against, someone.

New York Times Launches McCain Smear Attack; Staff Denies Allegations of Lobbyist Affair

The rumors alleging that Republican presidential front-runner John McCain had an affair with a Washington lobbyist eight years ago are old, old news. Really old news.

But the New York Times, the former pre-eminent "Gray Lady" of journalism now turned liberal apologist, simply couldn't stomach the idea that McCain is winning in his bid for the Republican nomination. Their current mashup never actually confirms that McCain acted improperly with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

In a puffed-up display of sexism and windy words scrawled on smoke and mirrors, the Times comes up with these startling revelations: Iseman, a professional lobbyist, went to McCain's office frequently. Amazing. A lobbyist visiting a U.S. senator's office? Who ever heard of such outlandish behavior?

But wait! There's more! She turned up at fund raisers with McCain. Now, there's evidence: lobbyists for major corporations that fund candidates going to fundraisers for candidates or Congresspersons they favor. Apparently the Times plumbers (ah, Nixon days!) don't get out often enough to circulate at political and business events.

And, to top off this sewage sundae, the Times, gamboling in the fields of Jerry Springer-dom, notes that Iseman flew on private jets with McCain now and then. Does the Times have any clue how many people flow into and out of Congressperson's offices, fundraisers, transportation (plane, train, or automobile) within just one year?

Based on the Times' logic, one of the Peanut crew has had affairs with numerous governmental luminaries. But really, if we did, we missed all the fun and weren't even aware of the torrid tumbles that we must have had, at least according to the new, enhanced, yellow tabloid Times.

The Times, which hasn't proven a darned thing, obviously doesn't care that it's potentially ruining Iseman's personal and public reputation, and thus may affect her earning capability. There is, however, one important fact on which the Times is correct: Iseman is a woman, and an attractive woman at that.
Would the Times be passing on gossip were Iseman a man? We doubt it. The Times, frightened by a strong Republican, who's also a successful (no damaged veteran stories here) former Vietam POW and a war hero, is simply flushing the gossip pipes to see if anything bubbles up. How those atop the throne of liberal hand-wringing managed to swish past such blatant sexism is something obscured in turgid waters.

It's said that McCain's staff restricted Iseman's access to McCain after rumors began. The Times, working the plunger desperately, declares that as proof positive of an affair. We'd call that smart image handling. Anyone who lives in a small town knows: if people are talking trash about something you're doing, be careful doing it even if you're doing nothing wrong.

On the other hand, the Times still hasn't gotten over its careful tidy bowl work when President Bill Clinton, accompanied by a good cigar (hello, Dr. Freud!) was caught playing around with an intern in the Oval Office. We need to be really careful here in defining the Times' standards. Sex with a young intern by a married U.S. president on company time and property is regrettable but an understandable flaw and error for a liberal Democrat; being seen conducting normal business with a female adult professional lobbyist is a breach of ethics for a conservative Republican.

Frankly, there's no paper strong enough to wipe that bit of Times effluvia clean. But if you mail us some copies of the Times, we'll be glad to put it to work in daily operations and try.

Disclosure: the Peanut crew's most recent contact with a Washington lobbyist was at a family dinner with a date in Oklahoma City. The lobbyist, with whom part of the Peanut crew disagreed politely on some issues, did not pay for a darned thing. However, we did attend the same historic function, we did travel in a vehicle convoy of sorts, and we did sit at the same table. We also had wine with our most excellent meal However, neither the tabletop nor the carpet were not used for any functions other than dining and walking, and no cigars were involved,.

Romney Endorses McCain as Republicans Unite

Noting that Democrats are "skilled at rhetoric that allows them to strike heroic poses," Mitt Romney said that former Vietnam POW John McCain was a "real American hero." The joint appearance stressed overall party unity and American togetherness in the face of a global jihad.




The debate's over, and Mitt Romney is poised to endorse John McCain in just a few minutes. He'll ask that his delegates and supporters swing their clout and votes to McCain.




On the other hand, the Democrats are continuing to cannibalize themselves, with a former President Bill Clinton staffer coming out for Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton axed a top staffer. The Kennedy family is lining up on both sides in this inner circle Democratic brawl.

Super Tuesday: Early Analysis

Super Tuesday: Jeff Greenfield Says California, Missouri Key

On the other hand, while some pundits are saying that Super Tuesday is going to be "so what?", Jeff Greenfield has a different take. He identifies how voting is "spun" by media and candidates asas key post-voting elements.

Super Tuesday: Will It Be Really Super?

Obama & Slumlord Rezko: The Money & Political Ties Are Years Old And Deep in Poverty Scandals

For generations, Chicago politics have been believed by many to be among the dirtiest in the nation. Given the nature of politics, deciding who's the prettiest in the mud rasslin' contests is not a thing of beauty. But as the campaign flows on, one element is being hosed away: Barack Obama's attempt to present himself as totally pure in his associations and backers.

Not only did Obama legally represent a portion of Tony Rezko's slum landlord business, but amazingly enough, Rezko and Obama bought side-by-side properties (including Obama's mansion) a few years ago. Obama's rise from novice senator to Democratic front runner took more than one good speech to fuel--it took money. Lots of money. And Rezko provided it, while low-income tenants in his projects went without heat in brutal Chicago winters.

Obama, who's saavy enough to handle Chicago politics, clearly could figure out renewal projects that didn't quite "renew." The Rezko problems were long-term and well-publicized, but Obama seems to have missed them.

As Tim Novak reports in an excellent investigative piece for the Chicago Sun-Times:

"For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers....

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building.

Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years. Rezko has been a political patron to Obama and many others, helping to raise millions of dollars for them through his own contributions and by hosting fund-raisers in his home.

Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers."

Novak also summarized some squalid details of Rezko urban renewal projects:

"Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

• Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

• Six buildings are currently boarded up.

• Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

• Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

• At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings. "

The government has filed numerous charges against the Syrian-born Rezko. Arrested this week on bond violation, he faces faces serious jail time if convicted of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud.

Obama's ties to Rezko run deeper than the "just another contributor" story he's floating. In fact, you could call Obama a Rezko supporter. In Obama wrote several letters supporting Rezko's Cottage View Terrace projects for low-income senior citizens. Taxpayers funded the Obama-endorsed projects for more than $14 million.

Although Obama says he's given all "identified" Rezko campaign contributions to charity, the taint lingers. Now it's been revealed that while Rezko was claiming poverty, he was getting millions from a secretive investor identified as an Iraqi millionaire. Why would someone from the Middle East invest in an indicted Syrian businessman now in jail?

One Arab-American blogger claims that Rezko's problems are caused by "the media bias against Arab Americans.....Arab American businessmen make easy targets for criticism and attacks." The freezing low-income apartments, Ray Hanania declared, were "livable residences." He speaks of Rezko's generosity, including "Rezko has a long history of supporting Arab American causes." Then why didn't his "generosity" extend to maintaining the low-income project housing as he contracted to do?

Now fast-forward to the Hillary Clinton snub that Obama denies at President Bush's State of the Union speech. In South Carolina, Clinton scored a solid hit on Obama as she brought up his business ties to Rezko, sparking real anger in Obama's eyes and voice.

With Bill Clinton acting as wife Hillary's Obama hit man, the Democratic campaign has turned into a real brawl. Obama's "Far Above the Madding Crowd" noble pose is getting scraped thin.

As Desi would say to Lucy: Obama, you got a lot of 'splaining to do. Start with how you missed Rezko's shenanigans (if you did, especially as you were one of his partners' lawyers) and if so, how that translates to being able to identify international shenanigans if you become president. And if you didn't somehow overlook Rezko's problems, then tell us why you went out of your way as a U.S. Senator, to support him.

As Super Tuesday Looms, Edwards Drops Out, Scoreboard Standings

Not surprisingly, John Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. His official announcement will take place in New Orleans this afternoon.

Play Nice, Kids: Obama Says Turning Away From Clinton Not a "Snub:

Apparently Sen. Barack Obama never checked in with Amy Vanderbilt or Miss Manners. The funny thing about this video: the woman behind Obama. Watch her face and body language: she's not buying what he's selling.